Talk:Homestuck: Act 6 Act 5
Backforwards OK the latest update does help in regards to Hussie's narrative claim that the acts went backwards to A6A5A1. Caliborn has immediately pointed out that, that is something you cannot do. Also Hussie claims the "Act Act Acts" are meaningless, which I guess would make people who want to merge all this back into Act 6 Act 5. Of course Caliborn began using his crowbar again to make Hussie comply with helping him again, and likely acknowledging whatever act designation this actually is. Really the situation seems to be the "Act Act Acts" are a joke that also actually happened, the going backward an Act Act Act is just a joke made to confuse and annoy. So yeah we've got more, but still also nothing. Yep. - The Light6 (talk) 05:08, January 27, 2013 (UTC) :It looks like we're probably going "back to A6A5A2", and if that does happen to be the case then I think we should leave these updates as being part of A6A5A2. Also, if after A6A5A2 ends it leads back into A6A5A1 I think I have an idea for the navbox, though granted it's pretty weird. } |list1= ( , ( )) ( , , , , , , , , ( ( )))}} :That's the best I've got. So... Thoughts? 05:24, January 27, 2013 (UTC) ::Now it says 'ACT 6 ACT 5 ACT 1 X2 COMBO!' which I mean confirms us back in Act 6 Act 5 Act 1. The question is, do we merge the pages or do we get up to sime weird shit? NikLink (talk) 10:29, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Caliborn also re-iterated the "can't go backwards" thing. But yeah I think the only sensible way we are going to be able to manage it is the merge it all back into "Act 6 Act 5" and than have the "act act acts" as sub-sections on a single page. - The Light6 (talk) 10:35, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Also I know "ACT 6 ACT 5 ACT 1 X2" refers to the fact that the site is current doubled up on itself, but what if it also the proper act designation, as you know, the "second" A6A5A1. Because you know having that as the article name would make this situation even more ridiculous. But yeah at this point I am just going to say: merge, split the act act acts into different sub-sections, and list them on the navbox like so: ( , , ) - The Light6 (talk) 10:44, January 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Well, if we're going to merge them into one page only A6A5 should appear in the navbox. Only if we're going to keep them on separate pages, should we see the whole (A6A5A1, A6A5A2, A6A5A1x2) thing. NikLink (talk) 10:51, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::I disagree, the navbox is designed for information display + navigation. Even if it is all merged it quickly displays that the sub-act is further sub-divided and offers easy navigation to those sections. In any case I threw together a merged page with a hypothetical arrangement of the navbox: User:The Light6/Sandbox - The Light6 (talk) 11:54, January 28, 2013 (UTC) Definitely pro-merge. As to the navbox, it may be time to redesign it completely to allow for the act hierarchy. But I'm struggling to decide how best to tackle that : / :Voicing my support for the merge. 14:30, January 28, 2013 (UTC) Against the merge. A6-5-2 is a thing and should be acknowledged and have its own page. There are better and mroe creative ways to fix this problem. I would link to A6-5-2 from A-6-5-1, and then link back to the A-6-5-1x2 section (which is gonna be made) of the A6-5-1 page. The ( , , ) idea works for me as well. Depending on how many pages A6-5-1x2 has. --Bananadrama (talk) 14:48, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :A6-5-2 is a thing and should be acknowledged :Setting aside "Let us never speak of ACT 6 ACT 5 ACT 2 again", of course it should be acknowledged. That doesn't automatically qualify it for a page. The more important thing to bear in mind about all of this is that Hussie explicitly stated in-comic that "The act act acts are kind of meaningless anyway." He didn't say acts, he didn't say sub-acts. He explicitly referred to the second level of subdivision, the one being discussed, as being meaningless. We can speculate as to whether it also applies to the first layer of subdivision, but given that those come with actual shifts of focus (unlike this subdivision), it's unlikely. We can keep the sub-sub-sub acts with separate links to them in the navbox, I don't really care either way if we do or not, but they don't each need page to themselves. :There are better and more creative ways to fix this problem :It's not really a "problem" per se. And we don't need to be "creative", we need to be pragmatic. :Anyway, regardless of merge or not, I have a new prototype design for the navbox ::I have to agree with SN, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Basically every thing, is a thing, but that doesn't mean that separate things can't be conglomerated, especially in this case, if we have A6A5A1 and A6A5A1x2 on one page (in separate sub-sections) and A6A5A2 on another page, we are basically telling readers that they should read the first half of one page, than go and read another page before coming back and reading the second half of the first page. For a wiki that isn't really convenient and doesn't help simplify the information, rather it makes the whole issue more confusing to people reading. ::tl;dr - While we can do it, we shouldn't do it. - The Light6 (talk) 15:33, January 28, 2013 (UTC) I've thought this over a lot, and I've decided that I am pro-merge. SN, I'm not sure if I like the look of the new navbox. That's not tosay I entirely disapprove, I'm just... Not sure. I have a few suggestions though: *First and easiest, fix the colors. *Secondly, I think rows should be arranged thusly: **A1, A2, A3, I1, A4 **A5, I2 **A6 **A7 Also I'm going to be honest: I've never really liked that manner of displaying Act 7. Maybe it could just be white text with a black border? I'm not sure how else to handle it. 15:34, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :I considered arranging them like that, but I felt that if any acts are in separate sections, they all should be. And putting Intermission 2 in the same row as the Act 5 sub-acts may not be a good idea, as it could cause confusion. And I'm definitely aiming to be rid of any brackets in this thing, because they've never looked great (also we'd then have to put brackets in the A6 section, which would look terrible). Ultimately, the only real complaint I can think of that can be levelled against this design is aesthetic, namely how much taller it is than the existing one. And that isn't actually in any way a negative as long as there's a reason for it being that tall, which there is – aesthetics are not a priority over usability, and this design is extremely clear in dividing up acts and sub-acts. :For Act 7, white text with a black border would be done in exactly the same way. The problem with white is that the glow, if reduced to a small enough radius to act as a sharp border, has a habit of missing corners, so the text won't be fully outlined. And I'm also not certain that all browsers can show the glow so it's maybe not a good idea to use pure white anyway, just in case the glow fails. And although we could make it an image link, we'd then have to worry about Oasis/Monobook issues. :Also we don't know white is the appropriate colour. That's just a placeholder based on the white platform in S Seer: Descend; it could well be changed when Act 7 arrives. And besides, the placement of A6A6 and A7 in that prototype at all is a placeholder – they wouldn't appear in the actual template until they begin anyway So a quick round up of the different ways of handling this issue, plus pros and cons, and the level of support for each. - The Light6 (talk) 16:21, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :I'm sorry but 1x2 is 2, therefore A6A5A1x2 is A6A5A2, my vote is for keeping it as A6A5A2, at least until something more definitive comes up. 17:49, January 28, 2013 (UTC) Going to keep this short. In favour of full merge. Not opposed to having two sub-sections on A6A5A1 for pre- and post- A6A5A2, and A6A5A2 as its own page. Opposed to all other suggestions (no offense). 18:22, January 28, 2013 (UTC)